Windows Xp SP1

Dempsey

I have downloaded the Service Pack but I am reluctant to use it. I got it off www.downloads.com using a college computer. (133Mb in 5 minutes!!).
The reviews from people that used it said that it slowed down the system and video performance, could anyone back up this or is it better to use the service pack?

Saruman

Dunno, i have a copy of XP with SP1 but i have not botherd upgrading as mine works fine

Dempsey

If you have the SP1 then you have nothing to upgrade to......

Is yours running fine?

daveJAM

OMFG, after you gave me the idea I got it in 2minutes 15. This rocks. Lets just say my mp3 collection will be getting a lot bigger.

Sorry for the OT post.

Dempsey

Mine seemed to be faster than it said but I just took the speed from the download window. The rate was 655Kb/s.

daveJAM

Well I took 2:15 from the download window, it did seem faster though.

I'm in WIT, You?

Now I'm looking to download Architectural Desktop 3.3.
Anyone know where I might get it?

Dempsey

IT Carlow.

timmyotoole

i installed the pack there a week or two ago and when i restarted the pc it never came back on. i could only run it in safe mode. i tried to figure out the problem but ended up haveing to format it and i stuck 2000 on instead. my advice dont put it on unless you have a problem with xp at the moment. there is no need for it and there is a good chance it might f**k up

Meh

Originally posted by timmyotoole
my advice dont put it on unless you have a problem with xp at the moment. there is no need for it and there is a good chance it might f**k up

There is a very major security hole in XP pre-SP1 that deletes your hard disk if you click a specially formatted link in IE. If you're not going to install SP1 (and it worked fine for me, no problems whatsoever), at least install this patch.

Saruman

Originally posted by dempseyt
If you have the SP1 then you have nothing to upgrade to......

Is yours running fine?

If its me you are reffering to then i think you did not understand.. not surprising as i did not phrase it very well... I have the original XP (pre-SP1) running fine, i also have a copy with SP-1 built in but i have not installed it as i see no reason to.

elexes

well install it from what ive seen it dosnt do mutch to preformance . ive installed it on about 20 systems ranging from cyrix 300 mhz processors to 2.5 ghz p4's and amd 2200 its running fine

KdjaCL

When i installed it ,it deleted a DirectX DLL kind of tricky position as oyu cant actually reinstall DirectX in XP without reinstalling XP.

A mate sent me the missing DLL and all was well.
but other than that no problems with it .

kdja

Mr E

Off on a slight tangent here, but I had been using XP in work for development (.NET). Following a colleagues recommendation, I formatted the drive and installed Win2000 Pro instead.

No word of a lie - its at least twice as fast to compile our product (took maybe 20 seconds for a full rebuild on XP, takes less than 10 in Windows 2000.)

- Dave.

Dempsey

Got home ran without a hitch. Don't see anything wrong....yet.:)

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Dempsey

I really risked it, It advised me to backup everything, i said fu*k it and went right ahead, If i suffered a system crash and had to format the disk, I would of fu*ked the PC through the window!!

kaimera

I couldn't see any reason to update.

I have the patch for GTA3 and various IE6 updates so it's not worth my hassle.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

GUI

Old rule applies..
if it aint broken dont fix it :-)

of course a service pack isnt going to improve
performance!

Your all fools for running Xp anyways.
Get the windows xp whitepaper..
get the windows 2000 whitepaper..

what will u learn..
there are no technical differences between the 2..
xp has more fail safes yes, like side-by-side dll support,device driver rollback,system restore and more intuative interface..
and a service which they bought off stardock systems which gives the much memory hungry luna interface,
application compatability mode (which is very hit and miss)
etc..

but do u need them slowly down ur box to a crawl nope

if u tweak win2k correctly ive had it flying on 64megs of ram and k6-350mhz, thats the box i was using on beta for it .

Kali

Originally posted by GUI_XP
Old rule applies..
if it aint broken dont fix it :-)

of course a service pack isnt going to improve
performance!

Strangely enough W2K SP3 added an extra 5fps to Quake3 on my machine.

GUI

with 5 new fps theres no limit to the amount of fun u can now have :-)